Jump to content

Talk:Janis Joplin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

June 2007

I loved Janis and saw her several times, but god, what a screech that voice was. Emotional, powerful, sure, but not a singer, couldn't carry Dinah Washington's jockstrap. Ortolan88

<g>. Add it, then. I did a similar thing for the article on Jim Morrison, noting that (like Bob Dylan) he's not considered a technically accomplished singer. Could use some rewording, maybe. I don't care for her voice either--or Morrison's, really, for that matter. --KQ

KQ, whenever the grand Wikipedia party is thrown, meet me near the bandstand. We'll have some good laughs. I had a talk page comment on Morrison, too, but I dislike his music so much I wouldn't dare edit the article. I don't know if you ever saw "The Making of 'We Are the World'" (talk about music trivia), but there's a hilarious scene where Stevie Wonder teaches Dylan how to sing his lines Dylan style. Ortolan88

No, I missed that one. Sounds priceless, though.  :-) --KQ

I snipped this part:

While a moving performer and song stylist, she cannot really be considered a skillful singer.

Or are non-NPOV statements now allowed on artists' pages? - Montréalais

I considered changing it to "not often considered a technically skillful singer" or something. What would you suggest? --KQ

Compare her "Ball and Chain" to Big Mama Thornton's. Big Mama was no opera star, but she could hit the notes way better than Janis, and I'm sure Janis would agree. Making a judgement and violating NPOV are two different things. I changed it a little bit, but as I said in my comment, if you can call her a promiscuous speed freak, I don't know why you can't say she was not a technically skillful singer. Roger Daltrey and Robert Plant sing a lot alike, but Daltrey is a far more skilled singer and it has nothing to do with non-NPOV or who you like, it is a judgement based on evidence. (I know this causes difficulties when people have poor judgement, but so be it.) Ortolan88

Actually, "promiscuous" bothered me a bit, though that's what most of the books say (and why not, it was the 60s and 70s). Better of course would be to quantify, but, uh, ick. --KQ

Effective vocalists who can't sing much: Charles Aznavour, Yves Montand, Richard Harris, Rex Harrison, Lotte Lenya, Janis Joplin. Gene Autry sang better than any of them. Roy Rogers too. Ortolan88

You left out Bob Dylan and Tom Waits.  :-) (both of whom I like quite a lot--and I listen to the Doors and Joplin on occasion too). --KQ

Janis Joplin couldn't sing worth a damn -- and she was no trailblazer for women. What crap. That text is gone. See my remarks below. deeceevoice 18:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You should spend some time in a modern recording studio then. Hardly anyone famous today in the popular music world can sing worth a damn. Janis' singing moved people though, that's what music is about...emotions.--210.50.81.234 07:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"her life ended too soon." is completely POV and unacceptable in an encyclopedia, aside from being vapid and tearjerking. --KQ

Syntax

"Because of her talent for singing the blues that she rose to fame in the 1960s as the lead singer of Big Brother and the Holding Company and eventually a solo career before her death from a drug overdose" I can't for the life of me figure out this sentence. S.Camus 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we designate Janis Joplin??

Please answer this question based on how you understand it:

Male singers who have voices that sound like female singers are generally designated as either falsettos or castratos, depending on the technique being used. But, how about female singers who have voices that sound like male singers?? Do they have any special name?? 66.245.30.189 01:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know so I asked some of my more musically minded online friends. They concur the term is Contralto. Here on wiki it redirects to alto but some external links in case you want confirmation are [1] [2] JohnCub 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (with a little help from my friends.)
I would suspect that you are answering a different question. The above comments pertain strictly to the range of a voice and, naturally, most female voices have a higher range than most male voices. But the question here is what makes a woman's voice sound like a man's, not, how low a note can she reach? At issue here are more questions of timbre and even more so, singing style. These are more complex qualities, but I think the original questioner is hinting at more like these things. 66.108.4.183 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

An anonymous user deleted this link: "Joplin Janis Lyn" in the Handbook of Texas Online complaining that it had "offensive, bigoted statements and the 'n' word." This University of Texas site reports offensive statements made about Janis, such as that she was a "nigger lover." It also reports that she's been called "the best white blues singer in American musical history." There's no reason we should try to protect readers from this site. I'm restoring the link. JamesMLane 11:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should protect readers from ridiculous remarks like "the best white blues singer in American musical history". Jimmie Rodgers, Jack Teagarden, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Emmett Miller, Hank Williams, Ella Mae Morse, Wanda Jackson, for starters, were all white, all American, all blues singers, all better than Janis Joplin. I know people idolize her, and my attempts to get some assessment of her scratchy, uncontrolled voice in this article have all failed, I loved her too, saw her live several times, bought all her records, felt bad about her tragic, wasted life, but golly folks, she really didn't sing all that well.
The trouble is "she really didn't sing all that well." is just as silly a sentence as the "best white blues singer in American musical history." Of all the technically great singers in the world, IMHO, none of them sang rock, or country, or blues. From a technical point of view, Hank Williams is just as horrible a singer as Janis. All that warble -- way too much vibrato, and a free and easy attitude toward hitting the notes. You could say the same about Billie Holiday, Elvis... Carl Perkins?!? For a singer, he was one hell of a guitar player. But they all moved you. (IMHO : the list of technically great singers who could still move you starts and ends at Ella Fitzgerald. On a good day, I may throw in Johnny Cash (who also has a claim on "best white blues singer".). Anyway, theres nothing wrong with external links to hagiography, as long as we don't endorse there silly opinions (or mine, for that matter). GWO 09:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was just turning my crank. There's nothing wrong with "she didn't really sing all that well" on a talk page. I wouldn't put it in an article, but I do think that the article should somehow point out that she screeched, but I canm't seem to find any way to sneak it in there. The article about Billie Holiday attributes her creaky voice to hard living, but even as a young woman she had some definite mannerisms. It was a long time ago that Moms Mabley said of Billie, "She sings like her shoes hurt."
This is really a pretty insoluble problem, but without going to the extreme of saying that Ella Fitzgerald is the only pop singer with great technical skill (and a serious lack of emotional content), there is such a thing as technical skill at pop singing, and here we are talking about alleged blues singing skills. Not all those opera singers doing Gershwin songs cover themselves with glory, either. Anyway, I'm really just thinking out loud. Poor old Janis can rest in peace. I'll never tell (not in the article, anyway), unless I find a good quote. And to show what a nice guy I am, I won't even start in on Jim Morrison. Ortolan88 02:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since when is Johnny Cash technically great? I love both him and Janis, but part of the real appeal of the two singers are that neither were great singers technically - they were great because of the rules they broke and the way they broke them. Their appeal lies partially in their lack of technical appeal. I don't really know anything about singing, but to my untrained ear, both had trouble staying on key and didn't have the purity of voice of "great" singers. Both had voices damaged by alcohol and cigarettes.Rmj12345 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
She got her effects in other ways, was a winner of a performer, a great name from the 60s, but go back and listen to those records, then listen to the worst Aretha Franklin record you can find and tell me which one's the singer. Ortolan88 23:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Amen to that. Joplin was terrible. deeceevoice 18:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I second that. I used to like her when I was in my teens and Joplin was still alive, but now I can't stand her. Her voice is like nails on a chalkboard, and she sang every song the same way. I have to shut off the radio or leave the room whenever a song of hers is played. Believe me, she was no Bessie Smith or Mahalia Jackson.--Susan Nunes 31 Aug 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.74.35 (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that this will affect the main page, but as a singer I can tell you that Joplin IS technically gifted. Her range is extrodinary as is her vocal power, ability to emote and ability to hit the notes (occaisional missed notes are a mark not of her strengths as a singer, but of the extreme difficulty of some of her songs!) Rather than saying she is terrible I reccommend something less inflammatory- such as that her voice is "nuanced", "harsh" or "unpleasant". While she may not be as inoffensive as Doris Day, Joplin IS a stunningly talented vocalist. (Unsigned post.)

LOL. Uh-huh. And there are many who would disagree. Like most black folks, I couldn't stand to listen to her awful caterwalling. Vocal range without control is mere cacaphony extended over a broader array of "notes." She simply didn't have the pipes to do what she tried to do, which is sound like a black woman. deeceevoice 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into this argument too far, but I remember a friend of mine who was 'on' to operatic, the 'popular' was inferior,and the 'R&B' to ignore. I sat him down and forced him to listen to two JJ records, and he had to admit that his horizons had been to limited, there is more in vocal music and performance than opera. --Dumarest 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) Huh ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.102.10 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, ain't this some bulls***

The following is a typical result of PC's fanatical enforcement of their illogical idiology. Some black people can be, and are, prejudice. I'm tired of hearing how skin color shouldn't matter and then hearing some 'black women' viciously stating it makes ALL the difference. Who cares what color singers are if people like to hear them sing? Only the prejudice care. The following writer seems to care a lot.

"Although there were of course some exceptions, prior to Janis, there was arguably a tendency for solo female pop performers to be pigeonholed into to a few broadly-defined roles -- the gentle, guitar-strumming 'folkie' (e.g. Judy Collins, Joni Mitchell), the virginal 'pop goddess' (Doris Day, Rosemary Clooney) or the well-groomed chanteuse (Dusty Springfield, Diana Ross)."

  • I presume the writer of this was more refering to a kind of gender roles of the entertainment industry. Perhaps to show the influence of Feminism. Although, I can see why you took it out; It's rather POV.--216.26.203.204 09:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

Typical. So, Janis Joplin pioneered her brash, gritty vocal delivery and stage persona? And Diana Ross was typical of black female performers, who were also sedate?

ROTFLMBAO.

Barry Gordy groomed his talent -- Diana Ross included -- to have crossover appeal, so white folks would accept them, buy their records and make him filthy rich. Guess what? It worked. He made the women prissy and nice, with the wigs and the gloves and the choreography -- even toning down the brashness of the vocals. He did that in a calculated fashion. There have been plenty of black women who were about being women -- not prissy ladies.

This text is typical cultural appropriation and outright historical inaccuracy. It's either deliberately disingenuous -- which I would prefer not to believe -- or written by someone young with a very limited appreciation of the history of blues, R&B and rock 'n' roll.

No. This woman Joplin -- who couldn't sing worth a damn -- studied female blues legends. And that means black women. Black women were not prissy and sedate, or guitar-strumming "folkies." Those were white women. Joplin got her music and her style from the same place/people her white, male counterparts did -- from black people, like (in rough chronological order): Ma Rainey, Bessie Smith, Sippie Wallace, Roberta Hunter, Big Mama Thornton, Etta James, Koko Taylor, Tina Turner -- and a whole litany of other black women (and men). And cain't nobody tell me any of these sistahs were prissy and sedate. They could belt it out better than anybody else -- and they could "sang" -- which, unfortunately, is something Joplin couldn't manage. She copied black vocal techniques and musical stylings as best she could manage and had the desire, but certainly not the pipes/equipment, not the talent. She sounded like a cat with its tail caught in a wringer. Black folks couldn't stand to hear her hollerin' and screechin'. She was worse than Michael Bolton.

She didn't blaze a trail for women; she didn't innovate jack. Black women did that. Did she blaze a trail for white women? Arguably, yes.

So don't try to rewrite history. Don't try to pass this crap off as truth. You'll get called on it every time. deeceevoice 18:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So by your logic someone like Nina Simone (classically trained)got rich by studying and employing white techniques? Whether Joplin could sing is a subjective point. She also used country techniques which woulda been from some of them white girls. And not all the white girlies was as prissy as you think. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Joplin's singing style

I've reverted the text. Her style wasn't "idiosyncratic." It's taken straight from black vocal techniques (except, IMO she didn't have the talent to carry it off). Joplin was no different from thousands of blues/r&b singers. About "yowlish" -- that's not an inherently negative word. It is onomatopoetic and describes perfectly her delivery, and it's a common enough adjective when it comes to vocalized musical expression (see funk). And, yes, Joplin screamed. Just google "Joplin screaming," and you'll see this characterization of her vocal delivery expressed in positive and negative terms. Again, it's a common adjective used to describe the vocal delivery of lots of r&b and bluesmen and women. The delivery is what it is. deeceevoice 09:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed about the screaming. When I got into her back in high school, the scream was one of the main things my mother (who grew up in the sixties) remembered about her. Rmj12345 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Overblown (and disingenuous) comparisons to Jimi Hendrix

I've returned to further modify the passage comparing Joplin to Hendrix -- which, frankly, is totally off the mark once one gets beyond their untimely deaths from illicit drug use. The passage made it appear that Hendrix's music and reputation have eclipsed those of Joplin only because he was more prolific. The fact of the matter is Hendrix always had a bigger following. His bluesy vocal talent was always more widely accepted -- not to mention the fact that he played one helluvah mean guitar, when the only instrument Joplin is really known for playing was her vocal chords; her musicianship was negligible. If I had my druthers, the passage would stop at the similarity in the way they died, because the comparison of their relative fame sounds like off-the-wall excuse-making/utter disingenuousness, and my attempt at balancing it sounds like sideways criticism. deeceevoice 06:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue, but she was a better vocalist than Hendrix. There where many similarities, the way they died, when they died, Thier music is similar and both are in The 27 Club.

That's damning her with faint praise. Hell, even I could sing better than Hendrix, let alone wail louder.--Susan Nunes 31 Aug 2007
Nor am I. However, the text as it was originally written made it appear that the only reason Joplin's star has dimmed more than has Hendrix's over the years was because of her more limited output, when there certainly are other factors to consider -- among them, talent (admittedly subjective perceptions but ones commonly held), fan base and virtuosity. I've already acknowledged the similarities in the circumstances of their deaths: drugs, youth -- but that's about where that ends. I simply worked to restore some balance and accuracy to the piece -- which it was sorely lacking w/regard to Hendrix and her legacy. Again, I frankly think the comparison between Hendrix & Joplin should end with their deaths from drug abuse while still relatively young. deeceevoice 12:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Joplin's Sexuality

Like a lot of other people listed as "bisexual", this article contains no mention whatsoever of Joplin supposedly being bisexual.

I'm adding her back to the category. There are a number of references that exist on this subject:

  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • "Going Down with Janis" a bio by Peggy Caserta
  • As well as a number of other biographies

My two cents from the best (POV) biography, does not dig to deep but mentions all sides.

  • Scars of sweet paradise : the life and times of Janis Joplin / Alice Echols

Seniorsag 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No Discography?

I've noticed this is one of the only musician pages with no discography. Could some knowledgable people put together something? --70.231.169.127 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Done. --Dumarest 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird non-sequitor in 'BB&tHC' section

The section starts out with: 'After a return to Port Arthur to recuperate', but there's nothing in the prior sections saying *what* she returned to PA to recuperate *from*.--Anchoress 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption on the main picture, removing the phrase at her best to make it NPOV Ayreon

"who can forget..."

are comments like "Who can forget her appearance on the Dick Cavett show..." (the several hundreds of millions of people who have never seen it, for a start) and "who con't be touched by..." (con't?) reflective of npov?

Discography

Um...where's her discography? This is a major hole in this article.--Esprit15d 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) There was a discography, but for some reason someone found it necessary to remove it. Vihrea 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


There is a discography back, but there is problems with it. I know of at least 3 CD issues named Pearl, one just duplicating the vinyl, one with additional tracks, one 2 disk with many additional tracks. I will uppdate the discography when i can have all 3 at hand. Seniorsag 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Uppdated Seniorsag 13:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-NPOV/Other Problems in Legacy Section

Shouldn't a section that describes someone as "pioneering" and "...pivotal in redefining what was possible for white female singers in mainstream American popular music" cite at least one source? Also, how can someone be "long overlooked" and yet continue to influence modern pop artists? Most modern pop artists at least sing on key, so the similarity is not self-evident. Also, comparisons and (unsubstantiated) reports of an affair with Jim Morrison, another "singer" whose talents are far from self-evident, does not constitute a legacy. And as stated above, to say that she is less popular than Hendrix because she put out fewer albums is speculative at best, probably closer to absurd. AllMusic.com states "amazingly, Hendrix would only record three fully conceived studio albums in his lifetime." Joplin on the other hand recorded two solo albums plus all her work with BB&HC which gives her a greater total output. The fact that she had fewer posthumous releases did not cause her to be less popular, it was because she was already less popular. Not to mention the fact that the phrase "she made a relatively small number of recordings during her career, and because she was not as prolific" is redundant. The fact is that Joplin couldn't sing or write songs and her influence was in attitude and style only-if that. This whole section seems scrapable to me. --Atripodi 06:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that! deeceevoice 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Picture

Is there a picture that isn't copyrighted that we can put of the top of the page? Onlyabititalian 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the head picture is listed as release given by copyright holder, but see no proof of that. And the other image is of an album cover, but does not make the legalities for such use, it is use of the album cover to illustrate the subject, Joplin, not the album itself. I have been caught by that more than once. --Dumarest 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Discography revisited

I put the original discography up a good while ago. It disappeared. I never noticed. Some months later another discography appeared. It in my opinion is incomplete. So I have edited, added missing items. Format is not consistent, I know that, and will fix [unless some kind editor will fix]. But, the new stuff has 'Live at Winterland '68 (1998, Columbia Legacy)' while I am aware of 'Live at Woodstock: August 19, 1969 - 1999'. Are they the same, or no? Anyone know? --Dumarest 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Drug Use Timeline?

The Article states:

"Around this time her drug use began to increase, and she acquired a reputation as a "speed freak" and occasional heroin user. She also used other intoxicants. She was a heavy drinker throughout her career, and her trademark beverage was Southern Comfort."

Yet the article never states when her drug use began. Anyone have a reference to a timeframe of when Joplin began using drugs? Regards, Nautafoeda 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Different sources give different information but "Scars of sweet paradise : the life and times of Janis Joplin / Alice Echols" implies that she started in Texas (Maruana) but hard drugs started first with BB&THC. Some sources inmply that they went out and in in hevy Heroin use all the time although their stated policy was "NO Drugs". Sorry I cant check right now since the biography is out, will update when I can check. Seniorsag 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to the top image

Fine, I hate to do this, but I have been caught by 'illegal' images too often. The image at the top is said to be from the source http://www.officialjanis.com.

I have looked throughout that site, and cannot find it. And a Google image search finds more than one copy of this image, from various sources. Just copying from the web is not acceptable to Wiki as far as I know. I copy from the image page: "2. The image is readily available on the source website, and the further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder.". Maybe so, but that does not make it a valid Wiki image. --Dumarest 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Discography dates

Refer to http://www.officialjanis.com - several of the dates there do not agree with the dates in the discography in the article [which discs I in fact put up, from another site, I forget where]. Could somebody who is more knowledgeable than I look at this and rectify where needed the dates? By the way, item 10 in the 'official' list gives 1968 as the date, but all the other dates are sequential - is this a misprint for 1998?? --Dumarest 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Two quick things:

First, somehow someone has implanted "Some People Say she is fat!" at the top of a section entitled "Opinions", neither of which seems to reflect a serious attempt at providing actual information. I'm not going to fix it, but somebody should...

Second, who knew that Janis Joplin died of a marijuana overdose? Answer: no one, given that the notion is absurd. The edit page shows the correct "heroin" yet it displays as "marijuana." Again, I'm not fixing it, but it needs fixing.

Topobox image

I know, I know, I should not do this. BUT, I am learning [the hard way] about image legal stuff. That image is said to be, by permission, from the official JJ site, but I cannot find it on that site, and so the attribution may be invalid, and the image invalid for Wiki. --Dumarest 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

high school Class reunion

I remember it mentiond in "Scars of sweet paradise : the life and times of Janis Joplin / Alice Echols" but I do not have that avaible, when I have i will add source. Seniorsag 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo POV

"She was one of the most influential rocks singers of the 1960's and is widely considered to be the greatest female rock singer of all time."

That was what I removed. The issue has been argued again and again here. While I love her singing and her influence was considerable, that statement is beyond acceptable. --Dumarest 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


POV but not sure how to fix it

"Cultivating a rebellious manner that could be viewed as "liberated,"" sounds a bit judgemental and codescending to me. as if it says "could be viewed as liberated (if you were an idiot)". Is it even true that her rebellious manner was "cultivated"? I'm prepared to believe she was a phony hack, but you would have to cite some sources.

I don't know much about her life but this POV should either be cited or removed in my opinion - what do other people think? Cyclopsface 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tatoos

I entered that item, complete with citation - how did said citation get removed??? I have restored it. --Dumarest 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Videos Pictures

Someone should comment on the remarks made by Janis about BB+HC in the "Festival Express" movie.

There is a video of Janis & BB+HC performing at KQED San Francisco (PBS) , the boys seemed condescending towards her.

I've seen the video of Janis at the High School Reunion , but I can't now remember if the context was PBS documentary or a DVD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.22.152 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Movie

Why no mention of the 1970s movie "Janis"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.0.117.171 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Now that 1975 documentary movie has its own Wikipedia article. Janis' article refers to it.

Janis A Heavy Metal Singer??

Every time i hear Janis sing it gives me chills. and i have listened to her for many years. No other artist can accomplish that on me. i dont know how any one could ever compare her to a heavy metal singer, except that she goes all out for every note. That should really be removed from the article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.61.41 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Joplin : Jolphin

The surname was changed from Joplin to Jolphin, I reverted that change. The link to genealogy had Joplin for her father, grandfather, et cetera. Interesting though, I found a reference to her as Jophlin, on a music poster: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cobain-Jophlin-Morrison-Hendrix-Poster/dp/B000R5P1L6 I suppose it could be true, but seems unlikely. --Dumarest 12:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A longer look via Google for Janis Jophlin gives hundreds [well maybe not hundreds but many] references to that name in many MySpace sites, and also many foreign language sites, usually the Janis Jophlin name in a string of names of rock stars. --Dumarest 13:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal information

An editing of the article of this date included data about an anti-war concert late in her life, with this text --- "This author witnessed the performance..." and he described it.

Is this not 'personal information' and not allowed in Wiki? --Dumarest 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Birth and Youth Locale

The preamble of the article (incorrectly) states that Janis grew up near Austin. She grew up in Port Arthur, as indicated (correctly) by her secondary school locale. -- 28 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.110.112.62 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction between this and Me and Bobby McGee

Me and Bobby McGee and Janis Joplin have contradictory information. Janis Joplin says that the last song she recored was Mercedes Benz while Me and Bobby McGee says that it was Me and Bobby McGee. - Jarn 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans

Ok, this page is out of control. Why not a section about how she was different from Herman's Hermits fans?

<< Because if you attended a Herman's Hermits concert, you were not likely to get dosed with LSD without your consent. >>

What's the point of setting up these dichotomies? And more importantly, what's the relevance?

<< It's relevant because it's an important example of Janis Joplin being misunderstood during her lifetime. Many newspaper reporters called her "queen of the hippies" when she was alive, but she was different from them in many ways. She believed in the American work ethic, was horrified by the hippies who burned dollar bills in Central Park (you can see news footage of this) and, finally, told at least four friends that people at Dead concerts had no right to dose others without their permission. >>

<< Why would someone who doesn't want to trip on LSD attend a Dead concert ? Because in 1970, the last year Joplin was alive, many people showed up at Dead concerts not knowing what could happen to them. They had bought the music at record stores without knowing that other Dead fans liked to dose people. Not until the 1980s did the danger of Grateful Dead shows become well-known to millions of people. Many victims who got dosed were ruined for life, and Joplin knew it. >>

This is an encyclopedic entry about Janis Joplin, not an essay on her supposed difference from "hippies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.66.35 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

<< It has been shown that many artists who died young were very angry at being misunderstood. Janis Joplin seems to have been no exception. In the article I reported her differences of opinion with the Grateful Dead entourage, with the Jefferson Airplane and with the lazy Rolling Stone journalist David Dalton. In order to be neutral I omitted the long-term pain that could have resulted from these differences. But that pain is as important as the pain she suffered during adolescence from being fat and scarred with acne. The fatness and acne are not in the article, but they involved just Janis. Her differences of opinion about doing your job and dosing strangers involve millions of people, so they are very relevant. People thought if she was queen of the hippies, then she agreed with most of them. She did not. >>

There are a lot of issues in this discussion. Some of it is rectified by entitling this section "Points of view," as it really is discussing Joplin's view on these issues. By using the "different from..." heading, it reeks of POV, both about hippies in general and Grateful Dead fans.
In calling it a difference between her and hippies or Grateful Dead fans, it is limiting it to that issue, which requires a lot better references than what are offered. In none of the quotes did I see the words hippies or Dead fans. Joplin didn't simply think that hippies shouldn't have free concerts. She was, from the quotes given, opposed to people getting in for free. Kantner didn't just think hippies should get free concerts, he thought the public should. Limiting the target to hippies is both misleading and stereotyping, which neither of them were doing.
The same is true for the discussion about dosing fans at concerts. Dead fans weren't the only ones in the music world to do this, and to single out that fan base, again, limits it and stereotypes it. In fact, people were dosed at Monterey and Woodstock. That throws out your argument about it being an artifact of the Dead. The truth is, Joplin was opposed to dosing, period. Unless you can bring in a quote that says she only opposed it in relationship to the Dead, then it needs to be left as a general statement.
As far as the pain is concerned, as you said, it's true of many artists, but not just those that died young. Besides, that's really beyond the scope of an article about Joplin. Be that as it may, Joplin did consider herself a hippie. I actually have both the Friedman and the Dalton books, however I just moved and haven't even begun to unpack my books. What I do know (partly from having lived it) is that the viewpoint of and about hippies in 1969-70 was different than it is today to those who can only look back on it. This section, as it was written, reflects that skewed viewpoint. I also know that hippies weren't all the same, though they had some of the same beliefs. By changing this section to "Points of view," and changing just a bit of the wording, it removes the bias inherent in it. This is a fair compromise to simply reverting it over and over, which needs to stop.
Finally, both of you need to start signing your entries on talk pages. It's Wikipedia policy. Wildhartlivie 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit and changed the word "people" to "Dead fans." Janis did specify that Dead fans were more likely to dose people than other fans. Yes, it happened at Monterey and Woodstock, but to a much smaller percentage of people in the gigantic crowds there. And those two events were unusual and could not be restaged until the 1994 Woodstock. The fact that Dead concerts became notorious for dosing in the 1980s tends to verify Janis' fear and hatred of the 1969 / 1970 Dead concerts. And Myra Friedman adds something really scary that I omitted from the article. When the Kozmic Blues band existed, Janis once attended a Dead concert accompanied by her sax player Cornelius "Snooky" Flowers. He was an African American Vietnam veteran, having returned from Nam before Janis hired him, and, sure enough, some Dead fans dosed him. It was so horrible that Janis accompanied him to a hospital emergency room where "she held his hand for five hours."

Maybe you lived through 1969 / 1970 as a hippie, but there were also non-hippies who knew what happened at rock concerts. Many emergency room doctors and nurses knew about it. While your experience might have been positive, it's giving YOU a POV that is biased. Unfortunately, there were some hippies who either got dosed or witnessed dosing, and they were so horrified that they became Jesus freaks or cult members. Others simply rejoined the churches and synagogues they had attended years earlier with their parents. Janis had to have known about the latter because she visited Port Arthur shortly before she died, and Port Arthur is very church - oriented.

The dilemma of "church or drugs" still haunts many residents of the Bible Belt, and Janis' life story includes that dilemma. In early 1965 she was a speed freak in San Francisco, then just a few weeks later she was a teetotaling, occasionally churchgoing student at Lamar University fantasizing that her former speed dealer would clean up and marry her in a traditional wedding planned with her parents. He visited her family's house wearing a suit and tie, then he broke off contact with her. Maybe he, too, was haunted by the dilemma of two and only two options: "church or drugs." Then Janis suddenly returned to San Francisco and told all four guys in Big Brother that she was staying clean and anyone who used needles had to stay away from their rehearsal space and parties. Once in 1966 she screamed and yelled at Dave Getz because he allowed someone to shoot drugs in front of her. That changed when Nancy Gurley persuaded Janis to shoot speed again. Nancy held a masters' degree in English literature, but even that raised a dilemma for the earliest hippies: What guarantees that someone will be a good influence on you ? Does academic excellence indicate in any way, much less guarantee, that someone is truly smart ?

The early Jerry Garcia was known as a brilliant conversationalist who was very well-read. He understood Lenny Bruce, read Hesse and Nietzsche, and he once used an oscilloscope to document how many notes Janis was singing at one time. Should Jerry have felt guilty for what happened to his fans who also had a lot of potential ? We don't know that Janis felt guilty, but we know that she was horrified by a lot of what was happening in the counterculture. Oh, and she was NOT a hippie. She said throughout 1966 to 1970 that she was still a beatnik, which meant she didn't have the idealism that hippies had.

As for Paul Kantner, maybe he hoped that anyone could break in to a rock concert. Let's be realistic. Either in 1970 or today, is someone who never has listened to rock lyrics about drugs likely to see a poster for a concert and then show up without intending to pay ? Someone who does that knows in advance that the band sings about drugs (Big Brother had a few drug - oriented lyrics) and therefore the band(s) on the bill attract some drug users who think it's thrilling to break in to the concert. Paul Kantner, who is actually alive today, has to know that. Janis thought everyone should pay, and she paid a high price emotionally for expecting so much from drug - using people. She was a fantasist just as she had been in 1965 when the speed dealer visited her family wearing a suit and tie. There is no record or her talking about that guy in later years despite her loquaciousness. Clearly he shattered her impossible fantasy and caused her much pain. Cordially, dooyar 10/24/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here are the issues, Dooyar. This section is POV. Wikipedia doesn't allow for POV additions to articles. This is NOT a discussion of what is wrong with Grateful Dead concerts or concert-goers. Joplin was not only pointing out Dead concerts for dosing, she was objecting to dosing, period. There were lots of big concert events besides those two, dosing did not happen in a vaccuum. And no, there's no need to add in about Flowers being dosed. Do NOT threaten to do so in an edit summary as you did.Your actual use of the word "scary" above reveals your POV about it and that's reflected in what you write. It will not strengthen the section. That's irresponsible. You assume that I was a member of the hippie culture and that I had positive experiences with what? Being dosed?? My edits are not POV, they are trying to improve the section.
Almost all of what you've written above is irrelevant to whether or not this section needs revision. Church or drugs, Jerry Garcia's intellectualism and whether he felt guilty about people being dosed, a speed dealer's visit in 1965, Nancy Gurley's degree, all of this. It's not about them, the article is about Janis, and this section is about her viewpoints. There was not a huge chasm between her and the others, as you would make it sound. The section is simply about her points of view.
It comes down to this. If you keep reverting this, you're going to wind up being taken to task for edit warring. The other people, myself included, are trying to make an article that is unbiased and about JANIS. I realize you are invested in this, but if you continue to revert this without good justification (which doesn't include a diatribe on the politics of the drug culture and music) I am going to request arbitration on this. The changes I made, hoping to nullify the POV about it, are valid and an attempt at compromise. You are not showing the least desire to compromise on this, which is really the essence of good editing on Wikipedia.

Finally, to sign your additions to talk pages, please sign with ~~~~. That is 4 tildes. Wildhartlivie 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A final point: Janis went home to Port Arthur shortly before her death because she was going to attend her high school class reunion. Somehow above, you managed to connect people becoming religious and Janis' knowledge of that with her trip home. Not at all connected. Also, Janis paid a high price emotionally because she expected too much from her family, friends and the loves in her life, not her fan base. You're really reaching in some of what you're asserting up there. Wildhartlivie 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Be advised I will report this for 3RR violations (more than 3 reversions within a 24-hour period. There have been at least two editors in agreement on the content of this section who have given valid reasons for the POV of the material. An editor is not free to simply continue to revert good faith revisions because he or she wrote it. You have reverted good faith compromise attempts with rambling and off-topic discussion, also in reverting this you have more than once also reverted proper reference fixes with no reasoning. I am also taking this to 3rd party arbitration. Do not revert this again until decisions have been reached regarding this section. Wildhartlivie 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

<< I didn't say Janis was reacting to religious people during her final trip to Port Arthur. What I said was that she knew before going to the reunion that many attendees were Bible Belt churchgoers, and during her filmed press conference she seemed bitter but she still wasn't the typical 1960s rebel. She was angry about the way classmates had treated a person who didn't fit in ten years ago, but she wasn't angry at the whole world the way Abbie Hoffman was. She seemed nice to the reporters even when one of them asked her the loaded question, "What do you think young people are looking for today ?" When she reacted to that with a little frustration, the reporter kidded her with "in 25 words or less" and she then said with a smile, "Sincerity and a good time, and they don't want to be lied to by politicians." If she thought everyone in Port Arthur was part of an ongoing big lie, she didn't say so. >> Dooyar 05:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

Request for Comments

Fixed RFC template to use actual section name DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


At least two editors have questioned the POV and bias in the section as written under the heading "Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans." Both have attempted to make it more NPOV and are being reverted by the section's author despite having written valid and logical discussion about it. I feel that this section's content needs to be reviewed by other editors and a consensus be reached to make this article section less POV.Wildhartlivie 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences page on the two edits of the section in question:[6]

If nothing else, the title "Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans" should be changed. Despite that being what the section is about, I believe it is rather... unencyclopedic, in tone. It sounds more like a magazine article's title than a section of a Wikipedia article. The section itself didn't seem to be too much POV. Most of the POV was merely in the quotes, which is perfectly fine. But I may have caught this right before it was about to be reverted, as well. CherryFlavoredAntacid 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I am not loving the way the section reads. It makes it sound like there was a feud going on between her and the Greatful Dead and Jefferson Airplane. The one called "points of view" reads like a good neutral article. The one called "very different" reads like a tabloid article - too much sensationalism. I don't think Janis was that contentious with her peers. Nothing I read says that. The writing's better in the "points of view" and I agree completely about the title. I vote for the "points of view." AndToToToo 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


The title "Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans" is POV in and of itself. "Point of View" is neutral and should remain the title. As far as the content of the section, there are a few points that are TMI and not needed. In general, edits would be good because only a few quotes are needed to get the point across. Pinkadelica 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


The whole section is very strange, it makes no attempts to even demonstrate its relevance. Are readers to assume that her being "very different from hippies and Grateful Dead fans" is as important as those other aspects of her career given their own section titles, i.e. her early life, her time with Big Brother, her death, etc? If the contributor wants to make the argument that the perception of Janis Joplin as a hippie is erraneous, then he/she should find a more suitable venue for that, such as writing an essay on the topic. I mean, I could easily make the argument that neither the Grateful Dead nor the Jefferson Airplane saw themselves as hippies, but that is not something that would deserve elaborate discussion on those band's respective pages. Perhaps this is something that should go into the hippie article instead, how artists during this period were often wrongly associated with or mistaken for sharing the values of their fans, due to the close relationship between performers and audiences at this time? Also, the details here are also so selective, why mention Kantner's attitude to gate-crashers and not Jerry Garcia's or Bob Weir's opinions on the same issue, which would seem to agree with those of Joplin (evident in "Festival Express")? But this is of course the materials for an essay on the issue, and not something that should appear here in an encyclopedia. The whole thing also creates the sense of schism between Joplin and other musicians of the San Francisco scene, with whom she of course was very close (appearing with the Grateful Dead on stage, being romantically involved with Ron McKernan, etc) 130.238.66.35 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the way the section begins is very puzzling, which I guess is related to the failure of establishing relevance. I mean, "Regarding those under 30, a 1970 issue of Newsweek quoted her as saying that hippies had no more right to attend outdoor rock concerts for free than anyone else." In what way does the contents of this section relate to being under thirty? What does being under thirty have to do with gate-crashing? Were there no hippies or Grateful Dead fans above thirty? Being under thirty is never again mentioned in the section. There is simply no logic here. 130.238.66.35 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have some consensus on this issue. Five editors have expressed their opinion, all of which agree to different degrees on the section in question. The title isn't appropriate in any way, shape or form. I am going to replace the section as it currently stands with the "Points of view" edit, and we can go from there. Wildhartlivie 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's try the following new heading for this section: "Belief In Freedom With Responsibility Despite Others Saying 'Without.' " The word "freedom" is important in "Me And Bobby McGee." Although you don't hear the phrases "freedom with / without responsibility" in the "Woodstock" movie or in video / film documents of the counterculture (such as videotapes of "The Dick Cavett Show"), you do hear these phrases in the retrospectives that were done in the 1980s and early 1990s. One example is the 1991 PBS special "Making Sense of the Sixties." Many aging former hippies pointed out that they were always promoting individual freedom twenty years ago, but now they realize that freedom without responsibility is an illusion. That's on the PBS special.

This is relevant to Janis Joplin for several reasons. First, she never missed a recording session or a concert gig. She never arrived at the auditorium late, as did Judy Garland. Janis handed out cash to unemployed strangers if she sensed they deserved a little boost (she wanted to hear each recipient's story), but she was often heard yelling at people who had jobs and made mistakes in them. The incident with David Dalton on the Festival Express train, which I put in the article, is just one example. A Playboy article reveals how she yelled at the manager of a small Chicago club who embarrassed a poor harmonica player who was a friend of hers. You've never heard of the harmonica player, and his name does not appear in any book. The article came out when Janis was alive. No, it does not show her naked. Headline is "All She Needs Is Love."

If you think I'm trying to create a "chasm" (as one of you said) between Janis and members of Airplane or the Dead, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that Janis was responsible in certain areas of her life despite her substance abuse. She did not just sit there moping or spacing out whenever she was offstage. I'm being fair here. Consider what Myra Friedman says to people on the phone these days. She calls Janis "a conservative Republican." That's a lot different from what Myra said immediately after Janis died, which was, "She wasn't a conservative girl. That's ridiculous. But she had a lot of needs that were just like everyone else's. She was accepting of many different kinds of people." I interpret that to mean Janis accepted some of the people who were dismissed as greedy capitalist pigs by the hippies and protesting college students. "Businessman, he drink my wine." "The man in the suit has just bought a new car with the profit he's made on your dreams." etcetera

Thank you for reading this far, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The point is there must be a better heading than "Points of View" in order to convey how different Janis was from the stereotype of the 1960s rebel who hates all monetary transactions and supports Bob Dylan's line "Everybody must get stoned." Oh, and the Washington Post quoted her in April of 1968 as saying that Dylan used to be one of her heroes, but she has replaced him with Otis Redding in her mind. That won't go in the article, of course. The big picture goes in the article, and big picture is that she believed in hard work, she did a lot of hard work and she knew that certain drugs make certain people unable to do any work, especially when they cause those people's deaths or brain damage. When a friend of hers from Austin visited her in San Francisco in 1969 and asked her for heroin, she told him it will screw up his life. etcetera, etcetera ... Dooyar 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

One of my problems with the heading you suggest is that it is wordy, but that's not that big a deal. The problem with using "Belief In Freedom With Responsibility Despite Others Saying 'Without.'" is that it is a value judgment. It implies that the others - ones you've mentioned are Paul Kantner and the Grateful Dead - had no responsibility; and it implies that Janis always did. She may have told a friend that heroin would screw up his life, but she still stuck the needle in her arm. In fact, she didn't practice what she preached - she is the one that died while the others lived (Jerry Garcia lived a LONG time past the 60s).
What I am trying to get through here is that she needs to be presented as she was at the time and in context of the 60s. What people said 20 or 30 years later in retrospect isn't representative of what was when she was talking. You can't make the mistake of reading into what Friedman said. Wikipedia isn't for interpreting these things, all we can do is report them in an unbiased way. Titles should be brief and concise and simply serve to categorize a little bit. With time, it's entirely possible other things may come up that would fit under this kind of a section which would show more of the kind of person she was, but not be so strictly regimented as far as whether she was more responsible than anyone else in her peer group. If we were writing an article about another 60s musician, we could very well be laying out why Joe Blow was more responsible than poor, dead Janis. It's relative. Dylan may not have ended up being one of her heroes, but he's still going. Take, for example, the Rolling Stones. Remember Altamont? And yet, Jagger, et al., are some of the richest, most responsible people in the world now. There are, no doubt, instances out there where Janis ended up looking like the irresponsible one. (Interesting that you chose Dylan and Traffic lyrics there).
The way it reads to me is that you have a very negative viewpoint of hippies. How this section was written, and even some of the things you've said above, reads that hippies=bad, which is just not the case. Of course, there were some bad hippies (although I'd argue that they were only hiding behind the label to get over), but then there were some good ones. The hippie generation, the love movement, wasn't just drugs, sex and rock and roll. And you actually used the right word - that's a stereotype. The problem is that when you line Joplin up on one side and the Dead and Airplane on the other, you're perpetuating a stereotype. I might point out that Garcia, Slick, Kantner, and the rest all ended up fairly wealthy to one degree or another, so they weren't all that irresponsible. I guess you also must keep in mind that at least one of the conversations that Friedman overheard was at a bar, and Janis loved to drink, and Friedman was, after all, there to exploit what she could from being around Joplin by writing about her. It wasn't strictly objective.
Objectivity is my point for all of this. We have to walk the middle of the road with what is put in here. Also, subtitles in WP are only capitalized at the first word, unless it's a name. And I do think the word "effect" is the appropriate one. I have an MA in clinical psych, wherein affect is to impress the mind or move the feelings of someone, while "effect" is used to denote non-emotional results (financial, physical, etc.). In any case, I have issues with the title and how it limits the section and what it means. The other issue I have is the part that refers to "rock concerts that attracted stoned people." Perhaps "the party atmosphere of concerts." Wildhartlivie 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<< I removed "Despite Others Saying 'Without' " from that heading. Now it says "Belief In Freedom With Responsibility." Also, Myra Friedman was not a writer when she listened to Janis preach against Grateful Dead fans and entourage members dosing people with LSD. Myra was Janis' publicist at the time. She never told Janis what to tell a reporter. Everything Janis said to reporters was her idea. >> Dooyar 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

<< Myra was hoping her job would last for a long time. A few months after Janis died, Myra resigned from Albert Grossman's office and started writing her book. I'll admit Myra became pathetic and exploitative in the 1980s and 1990s, such as her clumsy attempt to cash in on the stupid behavior of Bernhard Goetz, the subway vigilante, even though she understood little about the case. She missed her deadline for a Goetz article in New York magazine so the editor simply published transcripts of Myra's telephone conversations with Bernie from the time period after the shootings but before he turned himself in. That was the end of 1984. She kept Bernie's weapons in her closet but refused to turn them in to the police, opting to share the secret with a lawyer, instead. In 1970, however, Myra worked hard handling press relations, and she acted as a sane anchor for Janis. In late 1969 Myra and Albert Grossman persuaded Janis to visit a doctor and take Dolophine, the pill form of Methadone. Just goes to show you that some drug users are saner than non drug users. >> Dooyar 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

Trivia Section

I've moved some of the trivia facts from the article here in case someone else can integrate them into the article per WP:TRIVIA. The rest were left in as pop culture references. Pinkadelica 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

  • Joplin was once romantically involved with Leonard Cohen who wrote the song Chelsea Hotel #2 about their relationship.
  • Joplin was romantically linked with Ron "Pigpen" McKernan from the Grateful Dead. They had performed duets together as early as 1963, and were often seen drinking large quantities of alcohol together.
  • She once went on a blind date with conservative author and former Secretary of Education William Bennett. When asked what he and Janis did on their date, Bennett joked, "Hey, a gentleman doesn't tell."
  • Before Janis died, she had money allocated in her will for a party for her friends. After she died, her closest friends held a party, with a banner at the door that said: "Drinks are on Pearl!"[citation needed]
  • After seeing Joplin perform at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, Columbia Records Chief Clive Davis approached her to ask about a record deal. She agreed to sign only if he would sleep with her.
  • Contrary to popular belief, Lil' Wayne's "I Feel Like I'm Dying" does not sample Janis Joplin but instead "Once" by KaRMA, an indie rock band.

Belief in freedom with responsibility

Sorry, this is not working out. You can't piece together quotes to create the impression of a coherent belief system. That's simply original research and not very encyclopedic. Now, if Joplin actually stated her explicit belief in "freedom with responsibility" formulated as such, then it's a different matter. But you can't retrospectively foist a belief system onto Joplin, that's simply a POV interpretation. As the article looks now, one is given the impression that Joplin systematically advocated and extolled the virtues of "freedom with responsibility" as a kind of slogan. She simply did not. 130.238.66.35 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the title as it is now: Contemporary concerns. Wildhartlivie 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs pruning

I have made a number of style edits to the article, but it also needs some serious pruning, particularly in the sections on Solo Career, Contemporary Concerns, and Relapse and Death. The good stuff in these sections is overshadowed by trivia, e.g., in Solo Career:

"For 25 years after Woodstock, the only portion of her performance there that was available commercially -- in either sound or picture -- was a spontaneous dance she did with her band's African-American tenor saxophone player, Cornelius "Snooky" Flowers, during an instrumental break. It is part of the 1975 theatrically released documentary Janis."

"The segment begins with Joplin asking the audience, "How you doin'?" and then advising people who are stoned to "drink lots of water." "

"He was married with small children and did not allow drugs in the house."

"Footage of her performing the song "Tell Mama" in Calgary became an MTV video in the 1980s."

"Color graphics in the print media were in their infancy at the time, and it was not until the last week of Joplin's life that Circus circulated for the first time a color photo of the motley feathers in her hair. (She did not live to see color photographs in Rolling Stone magazine.)"

I would like to remove the trivia. Does anyone have a problem with this?

--Eldred 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been of the opinion that the article needs more work, but as you can see from above, there's been controversy with changes. I suspect that what you've taken out will get reverted, but I think the changes are helpful. However, if you're referring to the In popular culture section, I think it needs to be rewritten, but not removed. There's precedent for leaving such sections in articles and rewriting them instead of just removing them altogether. Wildhartlivie 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is just fine. It has had enough pruning. A few minutes ago I added footnotes about Janis saying audiences at large venues listen so closely to every note and about the interviews her parents gave to three media outlets shortly after she died. Let's see how long until the next person messes it all up. Multiple footnotes aren't good enough for some people. As Rick Nelson sang in 1971, "You can't please everyone. You've got to learn to please yourself." Dooyar 01:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar

This is an ongoing issue. I explained to you on your talk page that the way you are putting in references isn't according to WP policy and gave you examples and pages to consult on how and what is a reference. 'Go to 16 millimeter films and ask for "Janis Joplin"' is in no way, shape or form a citation. That's just a crap reference. There is something, somewhere, that can give anyone who wants to access this film you mention a way to find it. This is getting tiresome. I am trying to guide you to the resources on Wikipedia to help you write your contributions in an acceptable manner. What you are doing with this newest referencing just flies in the face of bad writing for an encyclopedia. This is NOT meant to be an exhaustive timeline of Joplin's life and death. WP guidelines suggest an article be concise (you should note that when you click "edit" that it tells you how long the article is, this is for a reason). Tidbits of trivia like a spontaneous dance or what David Dalton's book says about what might be in the eyes of the audience has no place in this article. The work that is being done to bring this article into shape to qualify for a higher rating is constantly being undercut by the addition of copious text full of tidbits. If you want to write a book about Joplin, do that. But not in this article. What you add to this must be verifiable and the direction to go to Baltimore isn't acceptable. Wildhartlivie 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example is the information about her parents giving interviews. I have to ask "so what?" It doesn't add anything of significance to knowing Janis Joplin, it actually doesn't even say anything except they did it. It's trivial and the article needs to lose trivialities, not add more. Wildhartlivie 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles rated B-Class

WP has a guideline for an article that is rated B-Class, as this one is, in all projects concerned with it. On the other hand, it's rated of High Importance on Importance scales. B-Class articles are:

missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.

B-Class articles: Considerable editing is still needed...correcting significant policy errors.

This is what we are working on. The article doesn't need expansion, it needs to be brought into compliance with Wikipedia policy and improved to garner an upgraded status. Efforts at bringing this article into compliance are not vandalism, editing is not messing it up. Wildhartlivie 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


MTV??

The Solo career section has the following statement: "MTV viewers saw Joplin (in her "Tell Mama" video) wearing feathers in her hair and a loose-fitting costume." MTV did not exist during Janis' lifetime, and the statement is written in a context that makes it sound as if it was part of her life (not in a retropective sense, which would be the only way MTV viewers could see her). My inclination is to delete the reference to MTV, but I'll wait a week or so to see if someone can edit it to make it clearer. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Television Appearances

I've found some videos on Utube showing Janis on what appears to be a "Tom Jones" television show in 1969. I've heard she also appeared on other talk shows. Should this be further researched & entered? StarGehzer (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, if you find verification for appearances, please research it. However, if you would, please post it here so other interested editors can review it as well, also we need to make sure what is posted doesn't constitute a copyright violations (which a lot of YouTube does). I didn't realize she'd been on a Tom Jones show, though she was on a Dick Cavett show or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugliest Man

While in college, a frat house voted her "ugliest man" on campus. This can be sourced, and I think should be added to the article, because it adds to the poignancy of her Ugly Duckling-like rise to fame. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mama Cass says "Wow" Citation

This has "citation needed". Will a link to the video of the actual performance and Mama Cass mouthing the words count? It can be found on youtube searching for "ball and chain janis joplin". It's her 1967 performance at the Monterey Pop Festival. Not sure if that's the kind of thing that can be cited, though. 82.69.214.14 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, YouTube isn't an acceptable source, as the clip shown on there is from copyrighted material, used in violation of it. I've seen this clip on a VHS or DVD somewhere, though I can't recall where. The tape or DVD would be an acceptable source, using the Wikipedia format for that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the clip again, you never see Janis and Mama Cass in the same shot so that could actually be from any part of the the festival, or even from another location altogether. So it may not be a reliable source anyway. 82.69.214.14 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you really serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.154.103.157 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

citations and reference list

The reference list seems to be scrambled. Could it be sorted, please? (83.13.39.98 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Recent changes

There have been some heated and hearty battles over this article over the past year and the changes reverted tonight were done in consideration of that. I have returned some of the wording that was changed in edits tonight, including the change of the formerly contentious section title, which was ultimately titled "Contemporary concerns." The editor changed it to "Philosophy," which, similar to issues with earlier section names, implies much more regarding Joplin's viewpoints in life than what the section covers. This is also basically the reason I removed the phrase "believed in informed choice on drug use" because, essentially, it assumes facts not in evidence. We don't have material that supports what Joplin believed regarding informed choice. Our sources only say that she objected to dosing, but not specifically why she did. The only other change was to return the Wikilink to the gatecrasher disambiguation page, because although the specific use of the word is redlinked on the DAB page now a forthcoming article is possible. It doesn't need to be defined in this article since the DAB page gives the definition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Contemporary Concerns"

My eye kept catching on what I considered weak and disjointed narrative flow through this particular section, and that's what I was trying to improve with my edits here. I understand and accept the reasons for your reversions on the gate-crashers link and informed choice, and as a newbie editor, I appreciate the clarifications here and have learned from them. With regard to the informed choice addition, I understand now that writers/editors can't "invent" material just so it improves narrative flow, without specific evidence to support the addition. As an aside, I'd add that I personally don't agree with the Wiki stance that it's useful to link to articles that haven't been written yet, but I'm sure that battle's been fought at length elsewhere and it's one of those things that newbies should best just roll with at first.

The change I'm still not happy with is the reversion to the previous title of this section. I understand why you're not satisfied, Wildhartlivie, with "Philosophy", and struggled with it myself for the same reason you identified, but "Contemporary Concerns" is the kind of thing our strictest, tightest-bunned high school English teacher would have taken a red pen to in a split second glance. IMO, it adds nothing to the article as a linked subhead (because I doubt that a reader would click on that at the top of the article to see what Janis was "concerned" about), and I think particularly with the modifier "contemporary", it reads as meaningless, confusing jargon. I looked through the archives here and only found two brief references to this subject heading, with no illumination that I saw as to what the issues were; I did not go through all the old edits where perhaps some of this controversy was stirred. I see in the discussion Archives that you "like the title as it is now". But if others have expressed a problem with it, I'd encourage you to revisit the issue.

Is there another term which better summarizes what this section is about?... we could try brainstorming it... and if there isn't one, is perhaps the article better off without any heading there at all? For me, this one weakens it. Runnoft (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)RunnoftRunnoft (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I do appreciate your response. You have no idea what uproar something like this relatively minor change would have caused in the past. Without being too specific, versions of this article from six or eight months ago were rife with conjecture and speculation and it was very difficult to accomplish anything. My comment of liking the section title as it is now was mostly in comparison to some earlier titles for the section, including Very Different From Hippies And Grateful Dead Fans, Belief In Freedom With Responsibility Despite Others Saying "Without", and Belief In Freedom With Responsibility. This was also where arguments about facts not in evidence began. Points of view was my initial preference. I'm quite open to discussion about it, in fact, I welcome debate and discussion (as opposed to contention :) ). Another option would be to remove the section entirely, something I'd probably support. The article is quite lengthy and in some cases, overly detailed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re: the earlier versions of this section title, LOL, now I like the title as it is now!! Seeing my edits, you must have thought, Oh boy, here we go again! Sorry I wasn't hear awhile back to help offer support for good editing. Your reversion of my informed choice due to facts not in evidence was right on target. That edit was only an interpretation of facts on my part to help the flow, but that makes it not "encyclopedic" (nor necessary)-- lesson learned. As to taking down "Contemporary Concerns", you might leave the idea open for a week or two and see if others jump in and offer a dissenting opinion, but I think that's a reasonable way to go here. The narrative part of this article is up near 4500 words, getting close to the rough Wikipedia guideline of limiting articles to a maximum of 5000 words. Other recent additions IMO seem more important to me than this material. This paragraph still sticks out to me as "not fitting in", and as the most expendable of the sections. Sure, it's of some interest, and sure, it could fit well in and flesh out a 250 page biography of Janis Joplin, but if one is limited to 4000-5000 words, my vote is to make the article stronger by pruning this relatively weak, non-essential section. Runnoft (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)runnoft

I am all for removing the section, I too feel like it sticks out like a sore thumb. My vote is to prune it out as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Lose it. The section is odd to begin with and I don't understand why any of it is relative to Joplin's notability. I really don't understand why it's titled "Contemporary Conerns" either, but that's neither here nor there. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Her 1965 Fiance And Her Fear Of Relapsing In 1966

What do people think of the edit I just made? I added stuff including her 1965 fiance (who visited her family's house wearing a suit and tie) and the fear she had of relapsing into drugs immediately after she arrived in San Francisco for the second time in her life. The only stuff that was already there that I changed had to do with sentence structure and spelling. For example, the word interviewed was missing an "e." The sentence about the end of her relationship with David Niehaus in 1970 was a bad sentence. I fixed a bad footnote for source # 12 (David Dalton) in the "Solo career" section. Sorry if you don't like it. Revert it if you must. Maybe the article has become too long. Nyannrunning (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of it is okay. Please bear in mind that the article is nearing size capacity and we are making an effort to shorten it somewhat. I again streamlined some of the article, and removed the phrase "drug-fueled lesbian relationship" on the basis that it is sensationalistic phrasing mostly based on Caserta's oft-refuted book. It wasn't a bad sentence. I also removed the quote from Friedman, because it's just too much fluff. The goal is to make it more encyclopedic and less novelized and unnecessarily detailed. I also don't know why you moved the last public appearance back before other appearances, which makes it achronological.
However, what footnote error was there at source 12? It was fine before your changes, but at the moment, before I fix it, you've removed the original anchor Dalton footnote and left a huge gap in the article with an error in a subsequent footnote. There are reference condensation links already established, those need to be used. No one is asking for page numbers on this article. Dooyar, you've been on WP too long for errors like that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check your version dated March 22, you will see that one of the Dalton footnotes, including "St. Martin's Press," was part of the text. It's in the section "Solo career." The footnote was for the quote "... with 'Is she gonna make it?' in their eyes."

"Dooyar" needs a reference. Nyannrunning (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring The Section Titled "Contemporary concerns"

I'm restoring this section to see whether it actually makes the article too long. It is footnoted carefully. It is vital because it illustrates Joplin's brutal honesty, even when she preached against the then-popular belief that "everybody must get stoned." Just because she died from an overdose doesn't mean she supported all the behavior of other drug users.

To balance the restoration of "Contemporary concerns," I tried to retain the same approximate length by removing the paragraph about tattoos in the "Legacy" section. I am proposing the idea that Joplin's objection to dosing people with LSD without their permission is much more important than her being one of the first famous women to exhibit tattoos. Have you ever heard of someone being forced against his or her will to get a tattoo? Other than the Nazi Holocaust, of course. Tattooing is always voluntary, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s tripping on LSD was not always voluntary.

The Friedman book Buried Alive includes a tragic story that this article does not have room to add. Friedman claims that Joplin's anger about forced dosing rose sharply after the African American saxophone player in her Kozmic Blues band, Cornelius "Snooky" Flowers," was dosed without his permission at a Grateful Dead concert he attended with Joplin. Joplin was horrified to discover what was happening to him. She accompanied him to a hospital emergency room where she spent five hours holding his hand during negative hallucinations he suffered through. Though the article does not have room for this story, it illustrates why Joplin's anger about forced dosing was important. She made the remarkable statement that the dosers were hypocritically using the same tactic that the Leave It To Beaver culture of the 1950s had used to brainwash people. How does Joplin's death from heroin undermine this remarkable statement? Heroin, which is very different from LSD, does not cause horrifying hallucinations. In 1970, most heroin users did not brag about their use and did not walk up to strangers at concerts to stone them on this drug. Nyannrunning (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the diatribe about Snooky Flowers, your action completely ignores the earlier established consensus that this section did not fit in with rest of the article and the very clear consensus that it be removed. You don't have the right or authority to ignore consensus in this way. The length of the article was only secondary to the rest of the issue, which was that to the rest of us, the section didn't fit in. It is being removed once again as consensus determined for it to be removed. If you don't like that, open a dispute. The tattoo material has nothing to do with this section in any way and is perfectly acceptable in the legacy section, and your reasoning about forced tattooing is irrelevant. Dooyar, you know better than to buck consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time you have mixed me up with another editor named Dooyar. The other instances happened in other articles. If you can't keep someone's screen name straight, why should anyone believe your claim that there is a consensus about removing "Contemporary concerns?" What are the screen names of the editors in this consensus? The tattoo section is not part of "Contemporary concerns," but it is part of the Joplin article. It has only limited relevance because everyone who gets a tattoo consents to it. At the time Joplin died, not everyone consented to tripping on LSD. Joplin expressed anger about that. Let's see if anyone other than Wildhartlivie joins in here.

Also, I started a new chapter for Seth Morgan. Heading is "Personal life." I added a detail from Myra Friedman's book about Joplin's desire for a reporter from Time magazine to attend their wedding. Nyannrunning (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We know why I "mix up" you and Dooyar. That isn't the issue at the moment. The discussion to remove this section is directly above this section and includes myself, User:Pinkadelica and User:Runnoft. The discussion was open to anyone who wished to be involved and was given two months, which is more than sufficient time for dissenting opinions. You don't have the authority to come in and overturn and undermine consensus decisions regarding this, or any other, article. Your contribution history indicates you were on Wikipedia on many occasions between March 19, when the discussion was opened, and May 22, when the material was removed. Please abide by Wikipedia guidelines and cease circumventing the process for article change.
The tattoo section is not in any way related to the contemporary concerns section and any attempts to connect the two in rationale for removing one section are essentially irrelevant. Finally, the rest of Joplin's personal life is interspersed throughout the article in all other matters, so there is no value in sectioning out one relationship. If Friedman doubted her source for the attempt to get married, then the reference to it doesn't belong. If you disagree with any of this, kindly DO NOT continue to change the article without discussing changes on this talk page, since the format of the article at present is what consensus determined. If you don't agree, open a dispute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which of the Wikipedia guidelines are you relying on when you say "we know" about your confusion? Okay, open a dispute. I don't have the Wikipedia authority to open it. Nyannrunning (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In looking back over the history of this article, it is apparent that this particular section has always been a source of contention, between User:Dooyar and User:Nyannrunning on one side, and everyone else on the other. I, too, find it curious that these two seemingly different users would argue for what is now called the "Contemporary concerns" section in the same manner, for the same wording, using the same arguments, use of grammar and same logical processes.
Be that as it may, Wikipedia guidelines dictate that sections in dispute be discussed and a consensus be reached regarding content. That has occurred on this article, and Nyannrunning, the discussion regarding this section was started on March 19 & 20, and continued to consensus on March 25. You were in fact present on this talk page on March 25, and started a new section, while ignoring the discussion regarding this section altogether. It's my opinion that you had opportunity to register a dissenting opinion but did not do so. It is not acceptable to ignore a discussion, offer no opinion or imput about it, then return two months later to restore the section, simply because you want to, especially when, in the process, you acted first and attempted to justify it second. The response above about the size of the article was regarding completely different changes you made that day, and not the "Contemporary concerns" section, so your justification based on seeing what it would do to the article size was invalid. Further, since you didn't take advantage of the opportunity to discuss it, it is not appropriate to take exception to the decision now. WP:Consensus states clearly "Silence implies consent." There is no need for a dispute to be opened to reinforce that consensus was reached. AndToToToo (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems to happen every few months with this user and it's getting very old. This issue has been discussed and a consensus was reached, that should be the end of it. A new debate shouldn't be opened because one user (or seemingly...two) insists on putting in sections that have no relevance in an encyclopedic article, especially when specific reasons were given as to why that section should not be included. User:Dooyar & User:Nyannrunning have used these same tactics on other articles that Wildhartlivie and I have attempted to source and/or keep within Wikipedia guidelines. It's the same MO and, I'll bet good money that if a debate is opened (by natch, Wildhartlivie or myself), the user will conveniently disappear before the debate can be properly discussed and a version can be agreed upon. A quick look at Talk:Johnnie Ray and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Johnnie Ray will show that we have played this game before. Unless both Dooyar & Nyannrunning would like to explain why they both keep popping up on the same articles and using the same diversionary tactics in a vain attempt to get what they think is so paramount to the article included, I don't think another debate or this discussion needs to go any further. If the user(s) can't leave well enough alone, I'll be more than happy to open yet another futile mediation, but I'll also be opening up another check user report. Pinkadelica 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

American Pie

Citation Don McClean has never confirmed that he intended it to reference to Janis Joplin in American Pie, therefore saying he does is arguable at best. I'm deleting it. Gripdamage (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one way to word this, since McLean also did not deny it. It has been returned and reworded to reflect that McLean has not confirmed or denied it. Also please note that new discussion belongs at the bottom of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Leading you to Janis documentary

Hi folks. Newbie here typing from a public computer. If you do a traceroute, you'll find it's at the place where Janis died. It's the hotel that used to be Landmark Motor Hotel. Now it's Highland Gardens. The lobby got spruced up earlier this year, but the dark hallway leading to Janis' room looks the same. As a tribute to her, I'm adding a sentence to the Legacy section. It leads people to the article about Janis (film). If you don't like it, that's okay. It might violate Wikipedia policy about the length of an article. If it does, skip it. I noticed Janis' article has no reference or link to that documentary. The VH1 Classic channel showed it twice on the night of Monday, June 23, almost a week ago. Bye now. Downonme (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, but it's curious why a brand new user would feel inclined to explain where a traceroute might lead unless it was a point that user had run into before on Wikipedia. In any event, this entire addition is unreferenced, uses editorialization ("before the advent of basic cable TV"), and summarizes the use of clips of performances with no foundation for from where this information came. This isn't appropriate for a legacy section anyway. Thanks anyway, Dooyar. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You've written an explanation I can't understand, seeing as how I only brought up the traceroute issue because I'm typing from the building where Janis died. At any rate, I thought I would be friendly and write back. I'm at the same computer where I was a week ago. I notice somebody put on my page something about an accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. Seems like it's too controversial to point out that there was no basic cable TV in the 1970s. There was only HBO in some hotels and beachfront condominiums. Oh, well, that's water under the bridge. Downonme (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Archives of interest

Back in the day, a few of us tried to talk about her singing voice. Most of it archived here: [7]. Ortolan88 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Joplin herself commented on her singing skills and style relative to more technically accomplished vocalists. In the movie "Janis" she compares herself to Aretha Franklin, who in her time was a highly accomplished technical singer in addition to being a pop success. Janis noted that she didn't have Aretha's skills at controlling pitch, and compensated for it with raw power and emotion. Anyone honest would admit that Janis was not a technically gifted singer. But to this day, whenever I listen to Ball and Chain I nearly break down and cry. What Janis lacked in technical skill she more than made up for with the power of her delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.34.161 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally subjective. I cringe at Joplin daring to compare herself to someone like Aretha Franklin, who has considerable range, technical training -- and she can carry a tune. So, what you're saying is if you can't sing, just scream a little louder, and that compensates for the lack of talent? Uh, I don't think so. Joplin comparing herself to Aretha? What arrogance! deeceevoice (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You can't really draw conclusions about arrogance unless you know the context in which a statement is made, and a paraphrased comment by an anonymous editor doesn't quite give you that. Meanwhile, for both above editors, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not on the subject herself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really. In that case, with regard to relevance, in what light is your comment on my comment relevant? ;) And, hell, yeah. It was arrogance/preposterous presumption on Joplin's part. deeceevoice (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Aretha can sing opera. End of comparison. Ortolan88 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
lol at Ortolan. ;) And gospel (speaking of emotion and power), and R&B/soul, blues and jazz, and.... (How have you been, Ortolan? We haven't crossed paths since the early days of Blackface before it was made a featured article and then screwed and de-featured.) Peace 2 you. deeceevoice (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Janis Joplin - Me and Bobby McGee.ogg

The image Image:Janis Joplin - Me and Bobby McGee.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual

Some sources, including NNDB [8] (which names two women), state that she was bisexual. Her bisexuality should be stated on her page; she should be added to bisexual/LGBT categories. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you around, Werdnawerdna, but apparently I do have multiple articles on my watchlist which interest you. As I noted on the Paul Newman talk page, NNDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and can't be used to base changes to articles. I've never heard Janis Ian mentioned in relationship to Joplin, anywhere before, and her relationship with Peggy Caserta has been frequently questioned regarding sexual vs. drug related. In any case, it's not enough to label her bisexual, and NNDB saying she was is not reliable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the NNDb is a more reliable source that WikiPedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.76 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Some clues, please read WP:RS, NNDb isn't considered a reliable source because it doesn't indicate where it gets its information. Some of it comes from Wikipedia. Another clue, Wikipedia doesn't get its information from NNDb. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention on 30 Rock

heads up for vandalism. 30 rock tonight is about comedy writers vandalising the janis joplin wikipedia page.

This article was just mentioned (and vandalised) on tonight's episode of 30 Rock. I know we can't preemptively semi it, but some more eyes on it tonight would be a good idea. And an admin ready to semi it just in case... Random89 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit talk pages. 157.252.152.95 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, what you reverted was me adding a not to the end of my own note, which I signed and time-stamped appropriately. Your edit was the one that was out of line, I'm not going to bother reverting you, but for the record, what I had said was that I collected all the 30 rock comments under one header. Random89 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


And more jokes to come... Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody given any thought how long the protection should last? There will be at least one rerun, which would probably flare up a recurrance. And then there's syndication.MMetro (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's already expired. WP doesn't usually protect in anticipation, so if the issue comes up again, it will be dealt with when the time comes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The general information says "30 Rock!" right now and needs to be fixed. -Katie

Janis said "the world is happy been hippie". Someone nows if Janis said´s this ?

Ezequiel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.211.219 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

what?

Why does Coprophobia redirect to this page? lmao 71.223.76.224 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Just vandalism that is now reverted. Thanks for pointing it out! Maedin\talk 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}} The album title is Cheap Thrills, not "Cheaper Thrills" as mentioned in this article twice.

No, that is incorrect. There was an album entitled Cheap Thrills that came out in 1968, which was released well prior to Joplin's death on October 4, 1970. If you had read more closely, you'd have seen a recording was made of a summer 1966 concert Big Brother & the Holding Company gave soon after Joplin joined that was later released in 1984, 14 years after she died, that was called Cheaper Thrills. I would have thought the dates of release would have yielded a clue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol

An important point not made in this entry is the battle Janis lost with alcohol. It is not unfair to say it wrecked her career. She joined the long list of American Artists wrecked by Booz.Johnwrd (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Her substance abuse is covered quite well in the article. Since it was heroin and not alcohol from which she died, it is unfair to say "booz" wrecked her career. Her career was going quite well except for that pesky little heroin death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says she got really messed up on drugs in 1965, more than a year before she joined Big Brother. It says she left Big Brother and soon afer that she was shooting 200 dollars worth of heroin a day. It says she died from heroin "possibly combined with the effects of alcohol." That's enough for me.
The problem with citing stories of her drinking from books is that in many of them she seemed to have a good time drinking with others at bars. In one Joplin book, Mia Farrow is cited as having a positive experience at a restaurant with her just a few months before she died. In another story that's between hard covers, Joplin befriended an obscure hippie writer named Liza Williams in a San Francisco bar. They spent a while drawing freehand sketches and swapping them. Williams reproduced one in her book Up The City Of Angels. I'm not saying any of this should go in the article. On the contrary, it has enough about her substance abuse.
On the night she died she had drinks with her band members at Barney's Beanery. Drinking a certain amount is safe, but all use of narcotics is dangerous. For that reason the article should and does state that soon after Big Brother returned from Chicago to Northern California in 1966, they moved to a house in Lagunitas, and "It was there that Joplin relapsed into hard drugs." Anyone reading this knows those drugs were illegal and she evidently had an easy time getting them in that house. Alcohol is legal. So let's leave the article the way it is. 206.170.104.51 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I must strongly disagree with the dismissive way that 'Alcohol' is thought "irrelevant" in Janis Joplins life. I do not disrespect her memory, but her life was destroyed by Booz. Anyone who knows anything of American Culture and Americas' Writers, Actors and Artists knows 'The American' experience with Alcohol is a travesty. Is it not relevant to Janis Joplins history that she was so drunk on stage at times, the next day she no recollection of even being on stage?Johnwrd (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, first of all, the word is "booze", not Booz. Secondly, let's not get carried away with hyperbole and start lumping American writers, actors and articles and American pop culture and pop culture figures into one big vat and calling it "The American Experience" and pronouncing it hopelessly intertwined and dragged down by demon rum. That's a misperception and a gross generalization that is not factual or accurate. No one has dismissed or called any substance abuse trivial or irrelevant in Joplin's life. However, you are advocating two things here, neither of which are true.

1. Alcohol did not "destroy" her career. Her drinking did not destroy her career. Her career was destroyed solely because she died. The career was in full swing and progressing rather well at the point that she died. A new album was being finished, that's not indicative of a career in ruins. Her being drunk onstage and not remembering performances did not destroy her career. For that point in time, her substance use may even have increased her popularity in some ways. Howver, her career was destroyed because she died. Note that this doesn't mean it couldn't have become a factor in a career decline at some point in the future, but then, we'll never know that, will we? Her main addiction problem was with heroin, that is what killed her, alcohol may, or may not, have been a factor in that. It isn't even accurate to say that alcohol killed her, so you can't come in the back door and say it caused her death. It was the heroin that killed her, it was the heroin that cut short a career in its height. There are copies of her death certificate on various websites around the net, if you doubt the cause of death, go find them and see for yourself.

2. You are claiming that the article doesn't address her substance abuse or performing under the influence and that is wholly incorrect. It is covered throughout the article:

Section "Career", subsection "Early efforts":

Around this time her drug use increased, and she acquired a reputation as a "speed freak" and occasional heroin user.[8][4][7] She also used other intoxicants and was a heavy drinker throughout her career; her trademark beverage was Southern Comfort. In the spring of 1965, Joplin's friends, noticing the physical effects of her amphetamine habit (she was described as "skeletal"[7] and "emaciated"[4]), persuaded her to return to Port Arthur, Texas.

Section "Career", subsection "Big Brother and The Holding Company":

Shortly after the five band members drove from Chicago to Northern California with very little money, they moved with the Grateful Dead to a house in Lagunitas, California. It was there that Joplin relapsed into hard drugs.

Section "Career", subsection "Solo career":

By early 1969, Joplin was addicted to heroin, allegedly shooting at least $200 worth of heroin per day,[8] although efforts were made to keep her clean during the recording of I Got Dem Ol' Kozmic Blues Again Mama!. Gabriel Mekler, who produced the Kozmic Blues, told publicist-turned-biographer Myra Friedman after Joplin's death that the singer had lived in his house during the June 1969 recording sessions at his insistence so he could keep her away from drugs and her drug-using friends. By most accounts, Woodstock was not a happy affair for Joplin.[4][7][8] Faced with a ten hour wait after arriving at the festival, she shot heroin[7][8] and was drinking alcohol, so by the time she hit the stage, she was "three sheets to the wind."[4] Joplin also had problems at Madison Square Garden where, as she told rock journalist David Dalton, the audience watched and listened to "every note [she sang] with 'Is she gonna make it?' in their eyes."

Section "Career", subsection "Full Tilt Boogie Band":

In February 1970, Joplin traveled to Brazil, where she stopped her drug and alcohol use. ... Joplin began using heroin again when she returned to the United States. Her relationship with Niehaus soon ended because of the drugs, her relationship with Peggy Caserta and refusal to take some time off work and travel the world with him. ... By the time she began touring with Full Tilt Boogie, Joplin told people she was drug-free, but her drinking increased. ... her friend and designer, Linda Gravenites (whom Joplin had praised in the May 1968 issue of Vogue), cut ties with Joplin shortly after their return from Brazil, due largely to Joplin's continued use of heroin.

Section "Career", subsection "Death":

Upon entering her room, he found her dead on the floor. The official cause of death was an overdose of heroin, possibly combined with the effects of alcohol.

It is totally inaccurate to claim that her substance abuse, including alcohol, has been downplayed, glossed over or ignored in this article. Does it single out drink as the basis for her problems? No, it doesn't, but then one would be hard pressed to find sources that would attribute her issues to the demon rum without addressing the heroin use because that was the fact of it. Will the article be revised to imply that alcohol was her downfall? Not likely, nothing out there would support. So, please, tell us, just what would you have it say that doesn't reflect the truth without minimizing what it is that made Joplin notable? It covers substance abuse as it related to her life and her career, however, it doesn't list each and every time Joplin was wasted, that isn't necessary to make the points it already makes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On that note, in case I did not make myself clear, you can't say anything positive about group situations in which Joplin injected drugs in front of others, sometimes sharing needles. (According to at least two books about her, just because she shot up alone on the night she died does not mean that was habitual. She shared stashes of heroin with fans and other strangers throughout 1968 and 1969.) The article makes it clear, with every citation of her drug use, that it was a negative, destructive thing. (You can imagine the positive things she could have done with 200 dollars a day.) Books say she was able to function intelligently while she was stoned and she even could sing and play a few instruments while stoned, but the fact that she was breaking the law is more important than that. As the article insinuates, she was paying 200 dollars a day to a criminal who got the contraband from other criminals. She could have been arrested for simple possession as was Jimi Hendrix in 1969.

It would be misleading, however, for the article to insinuate that every time she drank was negative and destructive. Books indicate she always behaved herself in bars and restaurants (unlike her violent contemporary Jim Morrison), and many of the group conversations were interesting and even informative. The David Dalton book Piece of My Heart, cited in our article, says that during her June 1970 concert tour, she drank at one hotel lounge (Louisville Kentucky?) with "an aspiring local black entertainer" and "a stewardess from Atlanta." Dalton himself seems to have drunk with her at every stop, tape recorder rolling, and this is how he captured her comment (cited in our article) that Madison Square Garden audiences "watched and listened to every note [she sang] with 'Is she gonna make it?' in their eyes."

Then you have the night she died. Everyone focuses on how diluted the heroin was or was not when she injected it at the Landmark Motor Hotel, but they forget that the alcohol found in her system by Dr. Thomas Noguchi was the result of a positive experience she had with two of her Full Tilt Boogie musicians at Barney's Beanery less than two hours before her death. Naturally, people later asked the musicians how she had behaved at that bar, and they agreed she had given no clue she was morbid or even troubled. Their recollections are in books.

Maybe her good behavior at bars had something to do with ... her being smart enough to know alcohol was perfectly legal? Or maybe alcohol didn't make her do the crazy things other alcoholics do. You can't lump her together with every single substance abusing rock musician. She subscribed to Time magazine and habitually carried the current issue in her handbag until she died. (The counterculture hated that magazine and didn't believe a word of it.) She hated Jann Wenner. She hated the hippies who burned 20 dollar bills in public. She had a strong work ethic and believed money was necessary to keep track of work, to keep track of the give and take in society. All this is documented in books about her. She said that give and take was very similar to the give and take in a romantic relationship and to the responsibility of her fans to dance during her concerts. She wanted audience members to do their part in the rock concert experience.

At any rate, "Johnwrd" is wrong about the article overlooking her drinking, and he misses the point that while some people who are cross-addicted to booze and drugs lose control on booze only, Janis Joplin was not like that. She not only controlled herself but became a good friend to many bar patrons, and we would be demeaning her memory if we insinuated otherwise. If she seemed drunk onstage, then why aren't you commenting on how it affected her singing? Did she ever just stand there on stage refusing to sing? No. She is quoted by David Dalton and Myra Friedman (another biographer) as saying she always sang whenever she was paid to do so, and she was telling the truth. A Joplin concert never was cancelled.

Take her away from the stage and she was a law abiding citizen at many bars in the company of people who did not use narcotics. She visited many a Holiday Inn lounge, and in that era pot smokers didn't go there. She drank with stewardesses and men who wore suits and ties. She drank with ballet dancers after they met backstage at The Ed Sullivan Show. (Source on that is, of all things, a Playboy profile of her in the August 1970 edition.)

Let's not suggest (in our article) she always drank with zonked out musicians who yelled, screamed, arm-wrestled and made people call the police. That is false. If the article were to suggest that was the case, it would demean her memory. Does a dead person's autopsy tell you everything there is to know about him/her? Joplin's autopsy gives us a blood alcohol level, but it doesn't take us backward in time to Barney's Beanery to see how she treated people when she drank on that final occasion or what the people were like. Does the way you treat others in public count for anything? Let's hope so. You don't have to drink to be mean. I have heard Raquel Welch is nasty to people without any drinking, but her Wikipedia article gives you no clue of that. (She appeared in public with Joplin twice, BTW.)

Dooyar/Debbiesvoucher/Nyannrunning/GSNViewer, please don't make me have to do a new sockpuppet investigation. Go quietly away without hoopla since you're permanently banned from Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a computer at the Los Angeles city library sytem where millions of people come every day. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia but it seems like the discussion page is much more flexible than the article. I'm sorry if you find what I said offensive. Can you explain your use of "quietly?" I don't think anyone registers any decibel level here. Maybe I shouldn't have asked that and I should consider you to be not worth my time. Bye now.

Voice range

I have recently put a source stating her voice type was mezzo-soprano: [9] Tribal44 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Janis_Joplin/Archive_1&oldid=1053170457"